This is easily the longest primary season since 1968 according to most observers. Some of the long ones were John Kennedy versus Lyndon Johnson, Reagan versus Ford, Edward Kennedy versus Carter and Clinton-Ross Perot-George H Bush battle. This year’s intensity beats all of them.
Therefore, when Hillary cites 1968 as example, that is apropos, for the length of that entire primary — number one. But two, it was not apropos for the very fact that the beloved Bobby got into the race at the 11th hour after much hestitation. He entered the race around the ides of March 1968 and was dead by June 1968!
In reality, that was one of the shortest campaigns in history juxtaposed with this (2008) damn longest campaign in history. So, if this bespeaks an omen it might well be that Barack’s reign will be a long one, rather than a truncated one. And if you recall the dynamics that led to the fall of Michigan and Florida primary chaos — states jockeying for first position, to become the one to put either Obama or Clinton over the top, pledged-delegate wise. Unbelievable!
That was the story. But the happy ending belongs to states that did not front the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. Folks, those final four states are laughing all the way to the political bank. While making history is not as easy as making movies — it is just as bankable.
Article comments
1 - Dan Miller
Heloise,
I am confident that addition of the numbers yields the sums posted in the article, but I must wonder whether you should add or subtract. How many who voted for Senator Clinton did so because they could not stand Senator Obama, and how many who voted for Senator Obama did so because they could not stand Senator Clinton? My guess is that there are many in both categories, although I have absolutely no idea how many. If that is the case, the "dream ticket" may actually be a "nightmare ticket."You say,
Dan
2 - Mike
Check the RCP site again. Hillary did NOT win the popular vote. The only way you can say she won is if you don't include the popular vote estimate from those caucus sites or decide to give her all her votes from Michigan while giving Obama none from that state.
3 - Clavos
Why would you count the PR vote?
Puerto Ricans cannot and will not vote in the general.
Their numbers are meaningless.
4 - Andy Marsh
I thought all US territories voted in general elections???!! I don't believe they have electoral college representation, but they do get to vote...of course, I could be wrong...it's happened before...
5 - Clavos
Sorry for all the repeats, folks!!
Andy,
Don't know if this is why, but PR is not a territory; it's a semi-independent Commonwealth. Puerto Ricans not only don't have the vote themselves, they don't have voting reps in DC.
On the other hand, they don't pay federal income tax, either.
6 - Dr Dreadful
Clav, I know MT is being a bitch right now, but click the Publish button once and once only. It should post OK.
7 - Clavos
My frustrated "Dammit" post was precisely because I know to click the "Publish" button only once and did so.
I have no idea why one click resulted in multiple copies.
8 - Ruvy
This just in a bit ago on Ynetnews. Bush congratulates Obama on Democratic nomination.
US President George W. Bush offered his congratulations to Sen. Barack Obama for securing the Democratic presidential nomination, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said on Wednesday.
"President Bush congratulates Sen. Obama for clinching the Democratic party's 2008 nomination for president," Perino told reporters. (Reuters)
9 - Andy Marsh
I never have understood that commonwealth thing. I live in the commonwealth of Virginia. I don't know what the hell that means, but at least I get to vote! Wouldn't mind the not paying income taxes thing though...
10 - Andy Marsh
Why'd they have a primary then? Isn't that like Canada having a primary?
11 - Clavos
Andy,
Here's a brief description of the structure and function of the Puerto Rican government and its status within the larger framework of its relationship to the US. The description is from Wikipedia.
Usually, they don't hold a primary; they just have non-binding (obviously) caucuses. I don't know why they decided to hold a primary this time.
12 - Cindy D
@#8
wooohooo!!
13 - Cindy D
@#1
Dan,
I supported Obama and I didn't care for Hillary as president. I don't find the idea of Hillary as objectionable as Vice President. I am not sure how many people would feel this way. It may or may not be relevant.
14 - bliffle
I think Obama has demonstrated considerable strategic skill dealing with the adversities he's confronted in the primaries, from all this religious and race commotion right through dealing with the formidable and (potentially) destructive Clinton campaign. It appears that he is dealing very adroitly with the Hillary situation even as he pulls into the leadeship position in his party.
I hope that if he is elected president that those same skills are applied equally well to handling the economic and foreign affairs problem we in the USA always have to face. I think his performance so far is very encouraging.
IMO we would have been better off the last 8 years if Carl Rove had applied his considerable savvy to solving our economic and policy problems, rather than the trivial goal of merely getting GWB elected. We'd have been better off if Rove had been boss rather than just serving a dimwit effectively in achieving mean political goals.
15 - Cindy D
Here is an interesting article from 2006:
Clinton-Obama Ticket Stirs Fear in GOP
"...some Republican advisers to the White House and leading 2008 hopefuls Sen. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani see the ticket as an easy winner built on the enthusiasm it would generate in Democratic circles.
Their theory is that Clinton would stand a good chance to pick up the states that Sen. John Kerry won in 2004. While not enough to win the election on her own, the addition of Obama would help push closely divided states like Ohio over into the Democratic column, thereby giving the Clinton-Obama ticket the White House."
16 - Cindy D
Personally, I would like to see an Obama/Gore ticket. I think that would be unbeatable.
17 - Dave Nalle
Gore would never take second spot to a newb like Obama. Obama needs to hook up with a solid, mediocre but respected figure who won't overshadow him. Joe Biden or Bill Richardson would be the best choices. I'd push for Richardson, personally. He might help break Obama out of his marxist rut.
Dave
18 - Cindy D
Yeah, I agree about Gore. When a supporter asked Obama, Obama said something about Vice President being a step-down for Gore. It would have had to have been Gore/Obama. Now that would have been a great democratic ticket.
19 - Clavos
In any case, Gore has clearly and unequivocally indicated that he's no longer interested in politics, now that he's been anointed the Pope of the Church of Global Warming.
20 - MAOZ
Cindy @#13 -- If, like me, you were old enough to remember Vice President Lyndon Johnson -- or even if you were just old enough to remember Vice President Gerald Ford -- you would appreciate the importance of the choice of vice-presidential candidate.
21 - Cindy D
MAOZ,
I have to say thanks. I wasn't paying enough attention to VP. I guess that preliminarily out of some of the possible choices I like Bill Richardson--a lot.
What really scares me is that Dave @#17 likes Richardson.
Dave? what am I missing?
22 - Dan Miller
Clav,
I think it is the Church of Global Smarming.
Dan